Abortion Discussion

[redleghunter]

And how would that prevent her from having to carry her attacker's spawn to term against her will?

The spawn as you so callously refer to is a human life. Why punish a distinct human life for what a rapist did. Perhaps if the offended woman had the piece of mind the rapist was in jail for life she would look to the child as not the offender but a victim as she is.

 

[redleghunter]

Terrorist --> Rapist. Hostage --> Rape victem. Blowing up the hospital would be victemizing the hostages twice. Forcing a rape victem to carry a pregnancy that resulted from the rape to term would be victemizing the rape victem twice.

No the noncombatants refer to the human life in the womb. They are both in a protected site.

The terrorists fate should not be linked to the fate of those who require to be in the hospital.

Check the LOAC and you will see the point.

 

[redleghunter]

Science does not make that claim. Again you are simply making an equivocation error.

It seems that the antiabortion side cannot see that they lost this case long ago. Using bad arguments will not change those on the other side and if there is no change you will continue to lose.

Is this a robotic response?

Of course it is scientifically proven a new human life begins at conception.

Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69092147

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...n-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page-10#post-69082245

 

[redleghunter]

We do, it's called abortion and it's legal.

The human life in the woman's womb is the rapist?

 

[redleghunter]

I can agree with that. But if the discussion is about the legality of abortion, then legal personhood is the relevant definition.



Personhood is a multi-faceted concept. Biology is certainly an essential factor. But is is the only factor? Aren't persons more than just their DNA?



I agree completely. We have to be careful and think it through. But we don't live in a perfect world, and there isn't a perfect answer to every question. Any definition of personhood will be arbitrary. It's just as arbitrary to claim than a fertilized egg is a person, as it is to claim that personhood doesn't occur until birth. What matters is if whatever definition we use is rational, reasonable, workable, and as fair and humane as possible to all parties.

Your comments are reasonable. Where we enter as a society into the danger zone is applying a subjective particulars argument to "personhood."

History is fraught with leaders and intellectuals coming to preconceived conclusions based on faulty assumptions. They did so to promote their worldview, ideology or empire and yes even faulty religion.

The abortion personhood debate is no different. Slap a legal term on someone who cannot legally or physically defend themselves and be done with it is our current Western approach. Sometimes laws are immoral and oppressive. In the US we have had our fair share of such laws.

 

[redleghunter]

What background does one need? Read the book. By the way, saying what the Bible says about God is not an assertion about God. Many people keep forgetting that the Bible is a work of man.

Which men?

How do you come to this knowledge of Scriptures?

 

[AirPo]

No the noncombatants refer to the human life in the womb. They are both in a protected site.

The terrorists fate should not be linked to the fate of those who require to be in the hospital.

Check the LOAC and you will see the point.

It fails miserably that way.

 

[AirPo]

The human life in the woman's womb is the rapist?

No, the rapist is the rapist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this a robotic response?

Of course it is scientifically proven a new human life begins at conception.

Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69092147

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...n-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page-10#post-69082245

Using the same old tired arguments time after time is not convincing. And again, you are using equivocation fallacies when you try to take away the rights of others. You lost the argument, at least in the U.S.. If you want to change things you are going to have to come up with a different strategy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which men?

How do you come to this knowledge of Scriptures?

The men that wrote of course. They are not necessarily the people that you think that wrote it. And I have read much of it, I don't know if I have read the whole thing cover to cover, that seems to be a waste of time, but more than significant portions of it over my lifetime. I have read articles on it, and watched videos on it. Of course the regular Sunday school lessons etc. as well. How did you get your knowledge of the Bible?

 

[redleghunter]

The men that wrote of course. They are not necessarily the people that you think that wrote it. And I have read much of it, I don't know if I have read the whole thing cover to cover, that seems to be a waste of time, but more than significant portions of it over my lifetime. I have read articles on it, and watched videos on it. Of course the regular Sunday school lessons etc. as well. How did you get your knowledge of the Bible?

Assertions of textual criticism.

Waste of time.

Sunday school.

Understand.

 

[redleghunter]

No, the rapist is the rapist.

You find it justified to kill a human life which did no harm yet where's the outrage over the rapist?

This fails any moral or ethical model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assertions of textual criticism.

Waste of time.

Sunday school.

Understand.

So you have nothing. Why do you think that a book that is largely filled with myths, such as Genesis and Exodus, bad morals, as can be seen in almost the entire Old Testament and a significant part of the New Testament, countless self contradictions, and failed prophecies have anything to do with this subject at all? Even the Bible is not clear on when a "soul" enters a person. If you studied the people that wrote the Old Testament you would find that they did not believe that a soul entered the body until the first breath at the earliest.

If you want to change anything you need to base your argument upon logic and morals and not the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You find it justified to kill a human life which did no harm yet where's the outrage over the rapist?

This fails any moral or ethical model.

You have yet to show that a fetus is a "human life". You have not even adequately defined that here. Just because something is biologically human does not mean that it is a person. A being with rights. At this time the law is not on your side. That means if you want to change things the burden of proof is upon your side.

Why can't any of the anti-abortion people understand the simple fact that the laws are not going to change themselves. Your acting outraged over an act that you do not agree with will not convince anyone.

 

[AirPo]

You find it justified to kill a human life which did no harm yet where's the outrage over the rapist?

This fails any moral or ethical model.

Explain please. Because it seems the moral or ethical model in question is letting the rapist of go free while victemizing the woman a second time by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

[Archivist]

The spawn as you so callously refer to is a human life. Why punish a distinct human life for what a rapist did. Perhaps if the offended woman had the piece of mind the rapist was in jail for life she would look to the child as not the offender but a victim as she is.

Remember I have never said that a rape victim should have to have an abortion. The choice, however, should remain with her. Knowing that the rapist is in jail doesn't undue all the pain and potential complications that she will have to deal with.

I have asked this before in this thread: do you favor involuntary servitude in all cases or just in cases involving rape victims?

 

[redleghunter]

So you have nothing. Why do you think that a book that is largely filled with myths, such as Genesis and Exodus, bad morals, as can be seen in almost the entire Old Testament and a significant part of the New Testament, countless self contradictions, and failed prophecies have anything to do with this subject at all? Even the Bible is not clear on when a "soul" enters a person. If you studied the people that wrote the Old Testament you would find that they did not believe that a soul entered the body until the first breath at the earliest.

If you want to change anything you need to base your argument upon logic and morals and not the Bible.

You seem to be shifting about. You started the Bible commentary after I pointed out the pro life view is based on the fact human life begins at conception. That's an undeniable absolute.

I then commented Christians have known this for centuries through God's inspired Written Word and church teachings.

Then you responded with the usual assertions about how the Bible is a mythical book written by men....and on. If you want to form a polemic about this subject in the apologetics section, I'm sure you will get responses.

I understand the meme "the Bible is a book of myths" is the security blanket assertion for non Christians.

 

[redleghunter]

Explain please. Because it seems the moral or ethical model in question is letting the rapist of go free while victemizing the woman a second time by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term.

Yes I explained it clearly. What fault did the human in utero commit to warrant termination?

 

[redleghunter]

Remember I have never said that a rape victim should have to have an abortion. The choice, however, should remain with her. Knowing that the rapist is in jail doesn't undue all the pain and potential complications that she will have to deal with.

I have asked this before in this thread: do you favor involuntary servitude in all cases or just in cases involving rape victims?

Define involuntary servitude. I ask because some define all pregnancies as such.

 

[AirPo]

Yes I explained it clearly. What fault did the human in utero commit to warrant termination?

You explained nothing, but to answer your question ...
Nothing. What fault did the woman who was raped do to warrent forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term?